Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Kasparov [HBR interview] : 'IBM committed a crime against science.'

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 14:05:21 04/27/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 26, 2005 at 15:59:11, Steven Edwards wrote:

>I'm sure that issue was covered in the match contract.  In computer chess events
>for nearly three decades prior to the event, adjustments made between games were
>permitted.

And this is the cancer that destroys honest computer vs human chess.


>Kasparov knew what he was doing, particularly in the second match
>after his experience with the first.

Interesting to write what Kasparov knew. We should better deal with what the
computerchess people knew. Apparently they didn't really know what they are
doing. And that for decades already. Ok, humans never really cared that much
because the overall chess emulation wasn't strong enough to be considered for
serious. But if compuerchess is propagating the superiority over human chess
things should be clarified a bit...




>
>Kasparov is being a sore loser and is unhappy because he didn't get a third
>match and the money that would have come with it.  He's appears to be trying to
>help draw attention to himself for his political asperations that have nothing
>to do with chess, and he's making Valdimir Putin look good by comparison.


For sure Kasparov isn't a sore loser when it was Hsu&IBM who deconstructed the
machine so that no further tests could be made. Scientifically this is a crime
(that is what Kasparov is saying in the quoted interview). Whith whom Kasparov
should have made a third match? With people who betray their own science? That
Kasparov is not a politician, this is a different question. I would agree! He's
not.



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.